ArticleMedicine2026
Development of a machine learning-based predictive model for feeding intolerance risk in preterm infants: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feeding intolerance (FI) is a common complication in premature infants, often resulting in delayed achievement of full enteral feeding and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to construct an interpretable risk-prediction model for FI using machine-learning algorithms based on routine electronic medical-record data. We prospectively collected clinical data for 420 preterm infants admitted to a tertiary hospital between June 2023 and August 2024. Time zero was defined as birth, the intended prediction time point was admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, and the prediction horizon was the first week of life. To avoid data leakage, the cohort was split 70:30 (stratified by outcome) before any further processing; missForest-style imputation, LASSO feature selection (10-fold CV, λ_min rule), and hyper-parameter tuning were performed within the training set only (9 predictors retained). Nine machine-learning algorithms were compared: support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), elastic net (EN), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), and decision tree (DT). Model performance was assessed by area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score (all with 95% bootstrap CIs from 2000 resamples), calibration intercept and slope, and Brier score. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP; KernelExplainer with k-means background of 100 training samples, nsamples = 2000) were used for model interpretation. The incidence of FI was 43.6% (183/420). After LASSO selection, 9 predictors remained. On the held-out test set (n = 126, 55 events), the KNN model achieved the most balanced performance: AUC = 0.862 (95% CI 0.795-0.922), F1 = 0.733 (95% CI 0.621-0.820), Brier = 0.146 and calibration slope = 1.062 (95% CI 0.711-1.643). Internal validation by 100 bootstrap optimism correction showed an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.865 for KNN, indicating only modest overfitting. SHAP analysis identified gastric-content withdrawal, caffeine therapy, tube feeding, PICC insertion, antibiotic use, defecation interval, gastric injury, birth weight, and sex as the most influential contributors to the model-predicted risk. A leakage-free KNN-based FI risk-prediction model constructed from routine clinical data demonstrated good discrimination and acceptable calibration in internal validation. Given the single-center design, the limited sample size, and the uncertain temporal precedence of some predictors, the model is exploratory and is not ready for clinical implementation; prospective studies with a predefined prediction time point, standardized predictor collection, and external validation are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.